krishnas
-
Content Count
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by krishnas
-
-
Originally posted by karthik_v:
Krishnas:
My point here is, leave Biblical interpretation to the Christians.
That raises an interesting question: Which Christians? - The ones that are mainstream today [that is the descendents of Constantine's tradition], the one's who followed Origen, the one's who burnt the books...which ones?
Who cares? As long as it isn't us.
I don't see how we can objectively show that Christianity is bona fide, from a Vedic standpoint. But I am happy to be proven wrong.
I would agree with this. We cannot show that Christianity is consistent with the vedic as we cannot show that advaita isn't.
Advaita can be shown to be inconsistent with Vedic thought. I'm not sure I agree with this comparison, but perhaps I misunderstood you.
Advaitists accept the same pramaanas as Vaishnavas in theory, and thus there is scope for interreligious dialogue. But Christians have a completely different standard of epistemology.
I don't think of it. Why should I? Does it suddenly become acceptable because Bhaktivinode (allegedly) did it?
Another good point. It only shows that nobody is perfect. Everyone, including the acaryas, has his share of defects. If any, this only goes to show that dogmas and blind following must be repulsed.
*I* did not say that Bhaktivinod Thakur had defects. I am merely pointing out that our loyalty is to shaastra first and foremost. Even the guru must be obedient to shaastra. I very much doubt that Bhaktivinode actually ate meat. The reference I saw to this is in a writing of his in which he simply criticizes himself out of Vaishnava humility. But even if it were true that he did this, why are we concerned with it, when it supposedly happened before his second birth into spiritual life?
This is not a very honest comparison. If the issue was that Jesus ate meat previously, and then repented, then we would have no issue with Jesus' diet. But the Bible records his consumption of meat even while preaching.
- K
------------------
-
Originally posted by shvu:
Let me make it more clear. Krishnas says some acts of Jesus "are not consistent with Vaishnava ethics" and consequently he (Jesus) is not upto devotees who follow Vaishnava ethics.
Not exactly. My point is simply that we cannot *prove* that Jesus is a pure devotee. Maybe he is, but I still don't see how we can assert this and be taken seriously. If someone were to object, all we have is faith to back us up, and I for one don't like adopting positions based on blind faith.
Of course, every system of belief must ultimately start with some axiom, and in Vedaanta this is veda-apaurusheyatva. But the Jesus arguments are based on additional assumptions that are not warranted in this context.
My point is, where has it been said that following Vaishnava ethics is a required qualification to be be a pure devotee?
What is the meaning of "pure devotee" if we are going to ignore shaastric definitions of the same?
Bhagavad-giitaa says it very clearly that one who does not follow scriptural regulations cannot attain the supreme goal:
yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |
na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||
yaH - anyone who; shaastra-vidhim - the regulations of the scriptures; utsR^ijya - giving up; vartate - remains; kaama-kaarataH - acting whimsically in lust; na - never; saH - he; siddhim - perfection; avaapnoti - achieves; na - never; sukham - happiness; na - never; paraam - the supreme; gatim - perfectional stage.
He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)
This being the case, how can it be argued that Jesus is a pure devotee? We hear of his almost hateful invective against "idol-worshipers," see him creating fish for fishermen, eating meat and wine, etc. It can be argued that all of these incidents are misinterpretations. But even considering this, who are we to say one way or another?
My point is simply that we should avoid preaching ideas that happen to be convenient towards our world view when it is obvious we can offer no scholarly defense of them.
The second point I made is, can the purity of a devotee be measured? If following Vaishnava ethics is a test of purity, then by the same logic, I cam make a similar argument that Jesus did so many out_of_way things which the Vaishnava devotees did not and hence he must have been *more* pure.
I stated the example to show any standards for determining purity of devotees is something that we make up on our own.
Cheers
As I am sure you are aware, Vedas and Puraanas are not regarded as man-made. Vaishnavas are obligated to judge according to Vedic descriptions, and this includes claims of Jesus's alleged devotion and similar deviations. The point is not to "measure" one's purity, but simply to see if a devotee does in fact live up the descriptions of a pure devotee as given in shaastra. So far, I do not see how Jesus does. Consequently, I believe it would be wise to leave off from undue glorification of him.
yours,
- K
-
Originally posted by Gauracandra:
There is some disagreement on the fish statement. In some Steven Rosen book he mentions how from one interpretation Jesus only fed bread to the multitudes. I'd have to look up his statements in that regard. Even still, he would be relating to individuals on their level.
For the Bible condoning animal sacrifice, I have mentioned before that the Biblical view is that originally everyone was vegetarian. But even in Vedic traditions there are sanctions for meat eating and animal sacrifice.
The notion of Jesus as God incarnate on earth suffering pain is also a disagreement amoung some groups of Christians. There was one group called the Cathars (who were wiped out) that did not believe that Jesus's body suffered. In fact they say (if I recall correctly) that Jesus was always a spirit, and was so pure that I think he never even touched the ground.
In each of these cases, however, we are simply showing our favor towards interpretations that happen to be convenient towards our position. They are hardly mainstream interpretations, and even then, they are most certainly not the only interpretations. And when we get right down to it, how do we know that those interpretations are correct? Just because they seems consistent with our perspective does not make them true to the Biblical tradition. Ultimately, most of us are not qualified to rewrite Biblical history/mythology, and we would be better off just leaving the Bible to the Christians and simply presenting our view.
Perhaps if Christians then suggest that they have difficulty accepting some of what we say, we can then point out that there are other ways of interpreting their scriptures. My point here is, leave Biblical interpretation to the Christians.
I don't see how we can objectively show that Christianity is bona fide, from a Vedic standpoint. But I am happy to be proven wrong.
-
Originally posted by theist:
krishnas,
What do you think of Bhaktivinode Thakurs eatting of flesh foods?
I don't think of it. Why should I? Does it suddenly become acceptable because Bhaktivinode (allegedly) did it?
-
Originally posted by ram:
Feminine traits are more valuable today than in ancient times because they are very rare.
This reminds me of an encounter my wife and I recently had. She is of course, of Indian birth and upbringing, and even more importantly, from a very conservative and traditional family. She isn't cut throat or ambitious like many of the American born Indian women whom I have met. Rather, she tends to be very gentle and polite, even to those who clearly don't deserve it.
One elderly American lady who stays in our complex always made it a point to greet us, especially my wife. I never really got to know her. But when my father-in-law came to visit us, this lady approached him rather boldly and began immediately complementing him on raising such a polite, respectful and well-mannered daughter. She actually started to lament that her own daughter wasn't like this. We barely even knew this lady, so we were shocked that she would speak like this.
What did I take back from this? I guess it made me realize that the gentle, well-mannered traits that are instilled in Indian women from orthodox families are nothing to be discounted. When even American people can appreciate them so spontaneously, perhaps as Indians (or practitioners of Indian/Vedic culture) we shouldn't be quick to discard them as irrelevant to today's society. It's a shame that many Indian girls in the Western hemisphere are so quick to take up the mantle of the "independent, ambitious" careerwoman.
------------------
-
I don't have any objection to appreciating the good qualities in other religious figures.
But objectively speaking, how is Jesus Christ a pure devotee of Krishna, to be named in the same sentence as Vasudeva datta, Haridaasa Thaakura, and others? Certainly the Bible records some very pious and saintly acts on the part of Jesus Christ.
But the Bible records other acts and statements of Jesus that are not consistent with Vaishnava ethics.
For example, I have read of miracles in which Jesus makes fish appear to distraught fishermen. If he was performing a miracle to feed some starving fishermen, then why not make something vegetarian appear, instead of killing a bunch of innocent fish?
I have read in other places where God directs his people to sacrifice animals, even cows:
"But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are holy. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shall burn their fat as an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD;" (Num 18:17)
Christians also believe that Jesus is God incarnate on the earth. But the notion of God having a material body and suffering for the sins of mankind is simply not an acceptable concept, as Vedaantic tradition holds that the Lord's body is transcendental and thus immune to material influences.
There is also a concept (from Exodus, I think) wherein the Hebrews are regarded as the "chosen people" of God, as compared to say the Egyptians who are made to look like villains. This is also not consistent with Vedic thinking, which holds that all people are spirit souls and constitutionally devotees of Lord Krishna, regardless of the their different bodily identifications. Keep in mind that in Exodus, God not only punishes Pharoah for his tenacity, but also the entire Egyptian population (with plagues, starvations, raining fire, etc).
Texts like Shriimad Bhaagavatam and Nectar of Devotion describe many symptoms of a pure devotee of Krishna. But how many of these symptoms were exhibited by Jesus Christ, and are specific for pure devotion to the Lord (that is, they cannot be explained by any other cause)?
Taking all of this together, I believe we should avoid trying to reinterpret other religious doctrines for the sake of preaching.
-
Originally posted by theist:
ramji,
What do you mean by "...wasting money in the name of yukta vairagya."?
Maybe he is referring to things like sannyaasis who walk around with PDA's, cell phones, laptop computers, etc...
-
Originally posted by souljas_1:
I got a question to ask you all. How do you react to disrespect? For instance, when talking on the phone with someone like a sales representative or in a store, and he/she starts treating you rudely, what would you do? I feel that human society for the most part runs on human dignity, and without it there would be chaos. So, when people disrespect you directly or indirectly, what's your reaction? For instance, you could be very wealthy, and not knowing who you are, they treat you like dirt for no apparent reason.
Both I and my colleagues are physicians in a major county hospital. Supposedly medicine is a "prestigious" and "well respected" field. Yet my experience has been that we are often treated rudely. We are treated rudely by patients who want to be put on disability assistance even though they do not qualify for it. We are treated rudely by nurses who like to play "armchair doctor." We are treated rudely by consultants who have poor work ethics and don't want additional work to do. We are even treated rudely by janitors who don't want to share an elevator with us, parking attendants who are just bitter, and laundry personnel who want to be treated as the "kings" of their respective "hills."
When I am able to stay calm, I try to see all of this as evidence of the underlying dissatisfaction these people have with their jobs and their material lifestyles. I am reminded about how different such karmi interactions are from devotee interactions, in which care is taken not to offend me, while at the same time not offering me undue respect simply because of some material position I have.
It reminds me again and again why I like to have the association of devotees, even in spite of my lack of interest in pure devotional service.
------------------
-
Originally posted by muralidhar:
Anyhow, in regard to a questions made earlier about the behavior of devotees in our mission in regard to "dating and divorce, etc.." .. well... what can I say... These things are not sanctioned, but Srila Govinda Maharaj will not ban or exclude devotees from entering our temples if they do these things. And if the devotees are addicted to drugs, they are not banned either. Drug addicts need to be treated with kindness and given encouragement and service; banning is not going to help them.
In fact, Srila Sridhar Maharaj did disconnect and excommunicate one disciple in London in the 1980's because he had an affair with the wife of another disciple. That was the standard in our temple in the 1980's. But Srila Govinda Maharaj is much more tolerant. I know that the misbehavior of some disciples causes him heartache, but he is a compassionate person and he doesn't like to hurt other people's feelings, so he usually doesn't chastise devotees.
Muralidhar das
Thanks for the detailed info, Muralidhar Prabhu. I really appreciate it.
I think it's very compassionate to accept a fallen devotee back into a temple community. Nobody should be banned from a temple of Krishna.
But as an aside, I am of the opinion (and it is just an opinion) that devotees who clearly demonstrate an inability to follow regulative principles should not repeatedly be put back into positions of responsibility. We talk about how varna and aashrama must be based on qualification, but we must adhere to that principle too. Thread initiation and sannyaasa should be reserved for those who can follow these respective duties. I think that fallen devotees should be encouraged to return to the temple and serve, but not in the capacity of a brahmin or other spiritually advanced position.
Anyway, it's just my opinion. If I end up in San Jose, I'll probably still check out Soquel.
Thanks,
- K
-
Originally posted by jndas:
I thought the San Jose gaudiya matha was Chaitanya Sarasvata Matha, Govinda Maharaja's disciples.
The ISKCON temple in San Jose is very nice, old style. The devotees there are very dedicated and work hard and sincerely. They would certainly be a very beneficial association for anyone. They have a website somewhere, but I can't seem to recall the exact name.
[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-02-2002).]
You are right, they are Chaitanya-Sarasvati Math. Sorry for the confusion.
I saw the website. What do you mean by old style? I thought it was just a storefront preaching center. I think Berkley has more of a temple, but it's a renovated church I believe.
thanks
- k
-
Here's a question. What do devotees think of the San Jose devotee community? There is an ISKCON preaching center there, as well as an ashram of the Narasingha-Chaitanya Math.
-
Originally posted by raga:
For the record, if you have a careful look, it is not written by Nitai das. It is clearly labeled as a "guest article".
It's not my intention to misrepresent him, but whether he wrote it or not, the same lack of good taste prevails. While I have many differences of opinion with contemporary ISKCON customs in the West, I would be pretty embarassed to allow such a blatantly uncultured piece of writing to show up in any publication I took responsibility for.
I am not blind to the abuses of principle that occur within the existing Gaudiya institutions like ISKCON. I would be the first to embrace an alternative if a viable one presented itself. But unfortunately the only people who seem concerned about ISKCON's problems just exhibit the same kinds of sentimentalism and fanaticism which they criticize about ISKCON. I find it hard to be impressed with the alternatives, to date.
I don't lament the fact that debate takes place within our sampradaaya. This is healthy. What is bothersome is the fact that everyone feels compelled to pull out the dirty laundry and use below-the-belt generalizations just to make their points. At least this was one thing I didn't have to worry about when I associated with Sri Vaishnavas. Is it really so difficult to ask for some basic standard of etiquette?
-
Originally posted by raga:
<center>zreyAn sva-dharmo viguNaH
para-dharmAt sv-anuSThitAt
sva-dharme nidhanaM zreyaH
para-dharmo bhayAvahaH</center>
"It is far better to discharge one’s prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another’s duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one’s own duty is better than engaging in another’s duties, for to follow another’s path is dangerous."
The issue then becomes one of determining what "one's prescribed duties" are. Some Sri Vaishnavas with whom I have debated this topic hold that this verse, and others like it, prove that varna is based on birth. But it is by no means obvious here that "one's prescribed duties," (i.e. varnaashrama duties) are those that are inherited by birth.
------------------
-
Originally posted by sha:
The world Teacher, Lord Krishna was instructing the seekers in the verse- 18.66 of Gita, "give up all dharmas (Varna Ashrama Dharma)"
and embrace "bhagavata dharma" - i.e. "mAm ekam zaraNam vraja" (EXCLUSIVE SURRENDER to Lord Himself) which is Prema Bhakti, Selfless Divine Love.
"Give up all dharmas AND surrender unto me..." The meaning is obvious. Do both, not just one. There is no basis for giving up dharmas unless one has taken to sharanaagati. I doubt most of us are on that stage.
dharmaH projjhita kaitavo 'tra paramo... and goes beyond the Dharma (VAD) and liberation mentioned in the verse 18. 66. of Gita.
And yet we still find descriptions of varnaashrama duties within the pages of the Bhaagavatam itself. I wonder why.
Prahlada Maharaj left his father,
prince Bharata gave up his mother,
Vibhishana escaped from his brother, Ravana,
Bali Maharaj ignored his guru and
Gopis renounced their own husbands and family.
All these Saints had become great due to their EXCLUSIVE LOVING SURRENDER to their Lord but not through VAD.
These example do not prove that just anyone can renounce varnaashrama. In the cases above, the issues of renunciation occurred in devotees who were already on the highly elevated platform of bhakti. Several of the individuals above (Vibhiishana, Bharata, Bali) were obviously engaged in their varnaashrama duties prior to achieving perfection in devotion.
What the examples above show is that great devotees can renounce varnaashrama dharma when the issue of ultimate surrender to the Lord becomes a reality. In other words, they were living up to the instruction of "sarva dharmaan parityajya maam ekam sharanam vrajaa..."
Only such perfected souls have lease to renounce varnaashrama. The same does not hold for the average person. If just anyone could renounce varnaashrama, then why was it wrong for Arjuna to want to leave the battlefield and enter the begging profession? Remember that Krishna's initial arguments were along the lines of following ordinary dharmas. Only later does Krishna advise Arjuna to give up those dharmas.... only to surrender to Him.
Varnaasharma is a means to an end, but not an end in and of itself. It is meant for purification of the consciousness of a devotee who is still affected by the modes of material nature. It regulates sense gratification by providing an opportunity to engage one's senses in Krishna's loving service.
In the pages of the Bhaagavatam, varnaashrama itself is not criticized, but rather the attitude of performing varnaashrama without also cultivating bhakti.
The quotes that you provide are very wonderful, but they don't condemn following of varnaashrama by conditioned souls.
yours
...K
[This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 06-28-2002).]
[This message has been edited by krishnas (edited 06-28-2002).]
-
Originally posted by Rati:
There are always the Shree Sampradaya devotees, who have built many nice temples in the West. They are very courteous to and affectionate towards Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Also, you won't have to listen to anti-Rtvik rhetoric or be given the third degree about who your guru is. Just remember to be respectful towards their beliefs, which are not all the same as ours.
I had some nice Sri Vaishnava association back in Dallas. Their natural piety is a nice change to the hypocrisies I would sometimes see among Western devotees. But then again, SV's living in America have definitely let go off a lot of regulations - like drinking coffee/tea, etc.
Some SV's that I spoke to told me of times they used to spend back in the good old days working with ISKCON devotees. But those stories almost invariably came to a horrible end, usually because things started getting crazy on the ISKCON side. One nice elder couple told me of their times in New Vrindaavan. You can guess why they no longer continue going to New Vrindaavan.
I think it's a shame that ISKCON can't hang on to the support of conservative Vaishnavas. They start off doing well together, but it all just goes to hell in the end.
Then again, the beliefs of Sri Vaishnavas can be trying at times. The moderator of the Bhakti list, for example, is really in love with Western paradigms of history and science. He believes in evolution, for example, and also thinks that the Indologists had it right when they described how Vedas were created. Even when it is pointed out how unorthodox such views are, he maintains them.
-
Originally posted by karthik_v:
First of all sorry to have said that it was Atharva veda which states that shudras are eligible to listen to the vedas. I checked and it is actually Yajur veda. Yajur Veda X.X.V.2 says:
Yatemam vacam kalyanim, avadani janebhyah, brahma rajanyabhyam, Sudraya ca aryaya ca, svaya caranaya ca
Translation: Let everyone listen to these auspicious words, be they brahmins, kshatriyas, Sudras, people of noble birth, our own people or others..."
I am unable to find this in my copy of YajurVeda Samhitaa. Are you sure the transliteration is correct? The numbering of the mantras also does not seem correct. At least in my version (the one translated by Griffith and revised by Arya), there are 40 adhyaayas, and the there is the number of mantras which seems to be continuous throughout the text (does not start from 1 with each new adhyaaya). But I don't see how there are four numbers....
------------------
-
Originally posted by Rati:
There are some discussions on this topic going on in some of the other devotee boards on the net.
One of the points that was brought up about VAD is that it is just adding another layer of false material identification that will just interfere with the development of one's bhakti.
That argument can be made about just about anything. Even the wearing of dhoti and tilak can also become the basis of pride and abuse of social standing. I have met devotees who brag about the number of rounds they chant, for example.
In that sense, there is nothing wrong with varnaashrama (as defined by scripture) itself that makes it opposed to principles of bhakti. Everything has its place, and so does varnaashrama. If one is too weak to follow varnaashrama regulations, then where is the question of him developing pure devotional service? Realize that we are talking about the average person, who is not above the modes, and hence he needs to be regulated by scripture. If we are talking about the exceptional devotee who is beyond the modes and surrendered to Lord Krishna, then that is a different matter.
Scripturally speaking, one cannot find fault with say, the 10,000 sons of Daksha Prajaapati, or Lord Shiva, because they do not follow all varnaashrama regulations. But the Vishnu Puraana, which I quoted in the Bhaktisiddhaanta thread, alread states that vad is the means by which worldly people worship Lord Vishnu. We can't just sweep scriptural injunctions under the rug because they are inconvenient.
Another point was that, although it may seem good 'on paper', practically speaking it is never going to gain acceptance in today's world. You might be able to implement it on some small farm with a hundred or so devotees, but to even conceive of propagating it in society at large (whether we are talking about India or America or Australia) is basically a pie in the sky pipe dream.
I'm sure Vaishnavas used to say the same thing about bhaagavata-dharma, until Srila Prabhupada single-handedly spread it all over the world.
Someone even remarked that it could involve nama-aparadha for those who consider it as important as chanting the holy names.
That is just plain silly. The Nitai das article was the first and only time I ever saw anyone give such an argument, and I think anyone can see that the article was blatantly hostile and full of low-class accusations.
If someone has a reasonable argument to make that adopting VAD is dangerous to one's saadhana, then we can discuss it. It would be best if it had some substance, since the bhajankutir article clearly did not.
Varnaasharma = naamaparaadha and Vaishnava-ninda? Come on....
Varnaashrama is a means to an end. But harinaama is an activity that takes place even on the transcendental platform. There is really no question about it.
Better to focus on the essentials, like kirtan and puja and lila smaran (for those so inclined) and, as Jagat always says, try to just be better human beings and cultivate respect for others (whether Vaishnava or non-Vaishnava, but ESPECIALLY Vaishnavas).
And among those essentials, I would include, obeying the injunctions of shruti and smriti, etc.
yours,
- K
-
Originally posted by raga:
In other words, one who has risen beyond tri-guna, such as the sages mentioned in the Upanishad, may act as he desires. As for the rest, they should follow duties in accordance with their nature.
Since most of us, though claiming to follow Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, are still affected by the modes, we are therefore not above varnaashrama.
I think there would be no objection to "creating" a class of brahmanas if these people would actually be brahmanas of the highest qualification. However, when we have pipeline production brahmanas who are chewing their nails and digging their nose without proper conception of sadacara, what to speak of "brahma jAnAtIti brAhmaNaH", it becomes rather objectionable.
Let's not confuse two issues, however. Any system can be abused, as is obvious from the present mess of a caste system that prevails in India. The fact that unqualified people are being given sacred thread and "brahmin" status represents an abuse. There is nothing wrong with the original principle.
Part of the problem, I think, is the precedent that was set. In ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada toured all over the world and initiated thousands of disciples. Given that he had few years of life left, and was trying to establish the foundation for his international society, it seems not unreasonable. But why must this same system be followed today? Why can't gurus just have a few disciples each, and spend more time with personally training them in spiritual life? The error I think that is made in ISKCON and ISKCON-clone societies is in allowing disciples to have a relationship with their guru that consists only of a few meetings and mostly correspondence. Granted, it worked for Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, but that doesn't mean it should work for everyone.
-
Originally posted by Sarasvati:
Anyway, I undertsnad that you wish to learn from devotees who are more advanced than you and can guide you. Association is very important. You could also consider temples in Europe. I heard that the devotees in Russia are very fixed up. Or what about India?
Sometimes being "fixed up" (in the colloquial sense) can also be a problem. I have met devotees who follow the four main regulative principles to the letter. Yet it does not come naturally to them, and they come across as very angry people with few interpersonal skills.
I like to think that being "fixed up" in Krishna-consciousness does not just mean being able to mechanically follow regulative principles, but also following them naturally. There are also many other regulative principles of Vedic culture, like speaking gently, respecting one's elders, being faithful to the Vedas, showing hospitality to a guest, etc. These things shouldn't be forgotten while attempting to follow the four main regulative principles.
..K
-
Originally posted by Sarasvati:
So many Indian gentleman come to the US and then find it difficult to cope with the fact that the society is so materialistic. Yet, they came to the States with material motives in the first place (ie. to make money). Unless one is preaching, there is really no point in staying in America, the stalwart devotees (you are seeking) would tell you.
In my case, the situation is not quite so black and white. I had the great misfortune of being born and educated in this country. Now I must remain in the United States at least for a few years to pay off my medical school debt. There is no way I could practice in India and do this, what with the 1:40 dollar:rupee exchange rate.
Also of concern is the increasingly lawless behavior of young Indian males on the streets of India. My wife told me many stories of girls being harassed, chased, etc without provocation. I can't say I blame her for not wanting to go back to that, even though she otherwise has no love for America, American culture, and American people (including Americanized Indians).
If I could go back and live in India, I might check out this Narasingha-Chaitanya Matha in Karnataka. It looks like Gaudiiya Vaishnavism with a Vedic/South Indian twist. Maybe the Bhaktivedanta Ashram people would also be more to my liking.
-
Thank you Muralidhar Prabhu for those links. But I was already aware of those links and the information they contain. What I wanted to know is the devotees' impressions of the Chaitanya Sarasvati Math in California. What are these devotees like? Are they strict in their saadhana? Do they get involved in institutional politics, or do they really prefer katha? Do things like divorce, dating, etc exist in the CS community in California?
-
Originally posted by raga:
How about this one (Gita 18.66):<blockquote><font color=blue>
<center>sarva-dharmAn parityajya
mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja
ahaM tvAM sarva-pApebhyo
mokSayiSyAmi mA zucaH</center>
"Renounce all kinds of dharma and just surrender unto Me. I will deliver you from all sins, do not worry."
That's my point, Raga. If we are surrendering to Krishna, then we are directed to renounce all kinds of external dharmas like varnaashrama. I was actually referring to this very shloka.
For those not yet on the platform of surrender, dharma is to be followed to the letter.
-
Originally posted by ram:
There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Varna is by birth and is by choice. Let me present some evidence why it is by birth and would like to hear evidence why it is not.
Arjuna refers to jAti dharmA and kula dharmA as being eternal. In another verse Krishna implies that women, vaishyAs and shUdrAs as less qualified than the righteous kshatriyAs and brahmanAs. There are interpretations that svadharmA refers to varnashrama duty which is based on birth.
Add to this Manu nIti (as it is available today) and CanakyAs works.
Why is it not birth based ?
[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-18-2002).]
Varna may be influenced by birth, but birth does not determine varna. In Bhagavad-giitaa, Krishna says "chatur varnyam mayaa sR^iShTa guna-karma vibhaagashaH." Karma and guna are the basis of varna - jaati (birth) is not mentioned.
The shruti clearly states:
tarhi jaatir braahmaNa iti chet tan na |
tatra jaatyantarajantuShvanekajaatisambhavaat | maharShayo bahavaH santi || vajra up 5 ||
If someone says: "One becomes a braahmana by taking birth in a braahmana family," then the scripture replies: "No. That is not so. A braahmana may be born in any kind of family. Indeed, many great braahmana sages were not born from braahmanas. (vajrasuuchika upaniShad 5)
This Upanishad then goes on to mention various examples of Brahmins who did not have Brahmin birth, like Vyaasa, Gautama, Vaalmiiki, etc.
In the Vedaanta-suutra, there are statements to the effect that a shuudra is not qualified to study the Vedas. There are similar statements about the relative lack of qualification of women, shuudras, vaishyas, etc.
But if we define varna based on qualification, which is as it should be, then these statements are telling us nothing new. Yes, a shuudra (for example) cannot study the Vedas, because being a shuudra implies that he has not undergone the process of spiritual initiation. We should think of these categories as based on qualification rather than birth, unless context forces us to think of them in another sense.
Shriimad Bhaagavatam discusses varnaashrama dharma, even though it is external to the goal of pure devotional service. Clearly, we are meant to transcend even varnaashrama, but this does not make it unimportant or unnecessary for most devotees practicing saadhana-bhakti. If we were already surrendered to Lord Krishna, then perhaps then varnaashrama would be unnecessary for us. But short of attaining that stage, I am not familiar with any scriptural statement that allows us to give it up.
yours,
- K
------------------
-
Originally posted by stonehearted:
Why not check out the community growing around Tripurari Swami's Audarya center in the Bay area? I haven't lived there, but this is one place I would be interested in exploring further. I'm not sure you'll find the kind of company as at ISKCON Houston (professionals of Indian descent), but, from what I know of Swami and his assoiciates, it seems you should be able to find mature, thoughtful devotees.
You can find his Web site at http://www.swami.org/
Yours in service,
Babhru das
The only thing that bothered me about the Tripurari Swami community is the mass-mailings we used to get some years back advertising "spiritual sex" and so on. Although I knew exactly what he was referring to, I still found the advertising in very poor taste, both because of its content as well as the fact that it was going out almost indiscriminately.
Still, it's not a bad idea. I'll probably go check it out. Maybe first impressions are deceiving in this case. The Bay Area is actually a very real possibility for me. I also heard that there is a Caitanya-Sarasvati Math out there. Anyone know anything about it?
Jesus devotee Krisna.
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
How is walking on water, bringing dead people back to life, curing lepers, etc tantamount to pure devotion? What is pure devotion to Krishna if these acts are pure devotion? Shaastras mention various yogic siddhis like becoming lighter than the lightest, instantly making any object appear from other planets, journeying to other planets, etc. But none of these are accepted as bhakti.
I don't follow your arguments.